too frequently these databases become nothing more than filing
cabinets for every project that the professional staff completes,
regardless of quality. Although we all do great work, some of that
work is, by definition, our “best,” and some is the firm’s “best.”
Without a knowledgeable human to review and screen for quality
every piece of information going into a database, you’re asking the
rest of the organization to fish for information in a polluted pond.
Let’s not even start with the question of who reviews all this infor-
mation as it ages to ensure that it’s still fresh and still represents the
current best thinking in the organization.
- It’s Not Really Knowledge
As I stated earlier, knowledge cannot be stored in a database; only
information can. In case you think that this is just a semantic argu-
ment, consider this: if I search a database for key success factors in
implementing succession planning, I’ll likely get a raft of reports
and presentations on succession planning—information. It will be
my responsibility to guess at the context and nuances that gener-
ated this information. However, if I ask Bob from down the hall,
who has done twenty of these projects, I’m just about guaranteed
to get something closer to knowledge, thanks to the context he can
provide. Even the KM experts agree with this. According to
George Bailey, PricewaterhouseCoopers’s North American leader
for innovation, “Everybody goes there [to the database] sometimes,
but when they’re looking for expertise, most people go down
the hall.”^6
- It’s Push, Not Pull
Information gets into a database only if people put it. It’s difficult,
even for those with the best of intentions, to remember to do this on
a regular basis, and sometimes people don’t have the best intentions.
According to Robin Giang, from the technology consulting firm
42 LEADINGORGANIZATIONALLEARNING